Doczilla stays busy meetingreal life deadlines and may not see inquiries soon. The big lizard therefore will not always respond swiftly even though messages are appreciated.

Hello, I believe that the1977 Allentown mayoral election should not be closed as "no consensus", and should either be relisted or closed as delete. No policy-based arguments were used against the deletion, and consensus is formed on strength of arguments as much as voting. No final relist was ever given for this article. I will open a deletion review if I do not hear back from you. Cheers,-1ctinus📝🗨20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus - I'd agree with the closer here, purely on numbers there's only a nomination and a single weak (analytically) support. It was relisted twice. There was a fairly engaged discussion between yourself and a keep supporter.WP:POLOUTCOMES on mayorality is not unambiguous, there are multiple factors which influence determining notability. To my knowledge, there's never been a community consensus around the size of a municipal area which provides some kind of presumed notability, although roughly speaking to my reading of the discussions, anything greater than 100,000 people is more often than not persuasive. A third relisting was unlikely to have brought any further insight to the discussion, no consensus seems fairly reasonable to me. Regards,Goldsztajn (talk)05:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FromWikipedia:Deletion policy: "If in doubt as to whether there isconsensus to delete a page, administrators will not normally delete it." "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete." Clearer consensus was needed to destroy an article.

FromWikipedia:Deletion_process#Determining consensus: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented..." It is not a vote, but multiple perspectives are required.

FromWikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting discussions: For several reasons, "repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation isnot recommended. In general,a discussion should not be relisted more than twice." (Italics and boldface appear there, not added here for emphasis.) The wordfinal does not appear anywhere on the deletion process page. Announcing "final relist" is not necessary.Doczilla_{Ohhhhhh, no!}06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for claifying.-1ctinus📝🗨12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doczilla, could you provide more explanation for your closure atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tukde Tukde Gang? Thanks,Katzrockso (talk)21:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to delete. BhikhariInformer's keep argument was refuted well. Svartner's falls underWP:AADP; see section on "Per Others." PARAKANYAA's "I don't see why we can't" comes close to personal point of view and, importantly, focuses on what policies do not say rather than what they do say. Only you and UnpetitproleX made keep arguments well, and consensus overwhelmingly disagreed (I know it's not a vote) by providing a variety of policy-based arguments.Doczilla_{Ohhhhhh, no!}07:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, but many of these !votes merely pointed to a policy or guideline (WP:JUSTA) or pointed to notability (WP:JN) without explaining why that is the case. PARAYANKAA's argument is responding to the other arguments (i.e. that "loosely defined political jibes" are a perfectly acceptable topic for an article) and at the end points out that the sources I provided are sufficient for theWP:GNG. Many editors made claims not supported by facts such as "usage of the phrase in other contexts is not well covered by sources", "significant coverage is clearly missing" to support their claims.

There were also 2 !votes that explicitly were bolded for "merge" and another !vote that indicated "delete" but also suggested merging in their text, while another delete !voter suggested they were open to a redirect. I don't think that a delete consensus is a reasonable interpretation here, I think the best outcome would have been a relist, but no consensus would also have been reasonable.Katzrockso (talk)01:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you tell me more about no consensus? There seems to be consensus that as a standalone article, it does not meet theWP:N. Maybe I should have linked toWP:CFORK in the AfD. Should we discuss merging somewhere other than the AfD? (I thought the consensus was merge.) --SilverMatsu (talk)03:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to merge. Only one person said to merge. One other (you) simply said you would not oppose a merge. You dominated the discussion. There was not enough participation from others.Doczilla_{Ohhhhhh, no!}18:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you.--SilverMatsu (talk)15:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example,identity morphism is a redirect to Morphism,associativity morphism is now a red link, and both are explained inMorphism. Also,semicategory seems to be aniche concept.--SilverMatsu (talk)04:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you please restoreAlexis Saint-Pete and its talk page to the draft space? If not, I can submit a refund request elsewhere. Thanks! ---Another Believer_(Talk)12:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one suggested moving it to draft space. That possibility needs to be raised during the AfD.Doczilla_{Ohhhhhh, no!}20:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, is that a no? I'd like to work on the entry in the draft space and I'd prefer to not start from scratch. ---Another Believer_(Talk)00:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a no. Move to draft space was not part of the AfD.Doczilla_{Ohhhhhh, no!}06:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked fora deletion review ofTukde Tukde Gang. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Katzrockso (talk)04:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]